Read between the lines

Mar 08, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

You have to “read between the lines,” especially when dealing with politicians. Much of what they mean is said indirectly.
When the Leader of the Opposition referred to Irfaan Ali recently as “President Ali,” it was not a Freudian slip. It was an implicit recognition that Irfaan Ali is the President of Guyana.
Now, that may not  be the full nine yards which the President demands. He has made it clear that he wants the Leader of the Opposition to own up to what was done with the elections and to directly recognize him as President. He does not want any implicit recognition.
The latter surely has to be a non-negotiable position. The President cannot have political dialogue – as distinct from constitutional consultations – with someone who does not recognize him as President.
But asking the Leader of the Opposition to own up to the attempt to rig the elections is unrealistic.
The fact of the matter is that the best way to establish the attempted rigging is for a full-scale international criminal investigation, not the piecemeal laying of charges against certain individuals.
The public is not going to take lightly any failed prosecution of those complicit in perverting the course of the declaration of the results of the elections. Those involved must be brought to justice.
The elections petition is immaterial to any admission of an attempt to rig the elections.
The elections petition, which was supposed to provide the evidence of electoral malpractices, from all accounts, has been thrown out by the Court on the basis that it was not served in a timely manner on one of the respondents. The other petition, as far as reports go, and the one which will be heard by the Court, deals with the constitutionality of the Recount Order.
That said, it is unrealistic to expect the Leader of the Opposition to concede that there was an attempt to rig the results of the elections. This is not going to happen. But his reference to “President Ali” may be taken at the minimum as a de facto recognition of the PPP government.
The public, however, has to also read between the lines as it relates to what the President and his Vice President said. The public must be on its guard when it comes to the model which the PPP/C will use to finance large-scale investment projects.
The PPP/C has a seedy record when it comes to the model  for the Berbice River Bridge and the Marriott Hotel. This model used for financing these projects favoured syndicated and special investors to the disadvantage of the State. This newspaper had long exposed this situation which has left the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) exposed in relation to the Bridge and which grants special rights to syndicated investors in the eventuality of the Marriott-branded hotel folding.
If one were to read between the lines, the signals are pointing to the PPP/C looking to again utilize this  model for the gas-to-shore plant.
And if one reads between the lines of what the President and his Vice President are saying, then the groundwork is being laid for the use of this controversial model for major projects in Guyana.
The Vice President recently addressed the Private Sector Commission and spoke about the high cost of finance faced by local investors.
He skillfully then segued, into announcing that the government will be licensing non-deposit institutions to bring in additional capital. He mentioned that one of the advantages of this was that they do not place local savings at risk.
It is a pity he did not know this when his government formulated the financial model for the Berbice River Bridge. NIS investments are seriously threatened by that model.
On Saturday, at a sod-turning ceremony for a hotel, the President is reported to have said, “One of the things which we are working on right now is to bring together various consortiums to ensure 100 percent of the forward and backward linkage of the oil and gas sector come here…” Mouth open, story jump out.
The formation of consortia, however, is usually a private sector initiative, not a government function. But when juxtaposed with what the Vice President said recently, what is being hinted at is that the government is returning to the discredited model of  public-private partnerships. And the obvious choice for such a model, involving foreign capital and consortia, is the gas-to-shore project.
So why then is the government speaking about the possibility of paying back the investment on the gas-to-shore project in four years?
Why not have the consortia and non-deposit financial institutions assume the full risk of the projects, free of any injection of funds from the government?
Read between the lines people! Nothing has changed. The PPP/C is back and has returned to its old ways!
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper).

---

---